Jonathan Clapsaddle

מבקר שיטות טיעון. מנסה לשפר את השיח סביב קרל פופר - שגיאה (זועקת) אחר שגיאה. חובב היסטוריה של הרעיונות.
#זה_לא_פופר

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

שרשורי שגיאות נפוצות לגבי פופר:

על מחשבתו הפוליטית
https://t.co/gUolTc9OmL

על עקרון ההפרכה
https://t.co/05gNwExXW5

על משפריו ויורשיו כביכול
https://t.co/qaev7hjQOa

וברחבי הטוויטר ב
#זה_לא_פופר

וגם - על מסדתנות סמכותנית (הנחה נרחבת שפופר ביקר):
https://t.co/P3XG6stGkB

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

שאלת הסמכות בצורתה המודרנית (היא כאמור ישנה מאוד) נפרטת בערך כך:

מרגע שהתנתקנו מהרעיון האינפנטילי שאנו מגבשים את תפיס(ו)תנו עצמאית לגמרי, ללא שלל השפעות חיצוניות לנו שבעצמן נתונות להטיות ועיוותים - אם נרצה ואם לא אנו נותרים, כך נטען, עם שאלת הסמכות:

על מי/מה אפשר להסתמך, ומדוע?

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@ItaehuSorek @ElbazYonatan התייעצת עם קונבנציונליסט? בוודאי ישמח לעזור.

(פופר, היגיון התגלית המדעית (1934/2014), עמ' 99)

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

(ותודה ל @Hadionysy על העידוד הבלתי נלאה! 🙏)

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

ספייסז קרל פופר בסוף יולי? באיזו גישה תעדיפו - מבואי/כללי, טקסטואלי או ביוגרפי:

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@shamkay2 @IDF You do know Hezbollah could just *not* operate in the middle of civilian areas, right?

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@bnielson01 Have you read his "The Open Universe"? Worth reading.

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@yehudamber (אני לא חושב. אבל גרעינים קאנטיאנים? בוודאי.)

https://t.co/qi3JTXdW7h

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@Hadionysy רק אניח את זה כאן...

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

As you presumably know, instead of building the state they pretend they're fighting for, and instead of using that money for actually caring for Palestinians - Hamas built an enormous system of tunnels with which to fight Israel. If you know of a way for Israel's advanced surveillance and precision weapons to get at every weapons cache built in civilians rooms and in tunnels built under dense civilian areas, please share how. That way the IDF can fight Hamas - for deliberately trying to murder innocent people; we've agreed that's wrong, yes? - with an even lower civilian/combatant ratio than what Hamas are deliberately trying to generate.

Incidentally: You haven't actually said that Hamas aren't justified for trying to destroy a state just like the one they claim they're fighting for. Are they?

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

Agreed there is no justification for deliberate slaughter of children. This is why Hamas have no justification for firing from civilian areas, hiding weapons caches in civilian houses, or fighting plain-clothed from civilian neighborhoods - and bear the moral responsibility for the consequences of their doing so.

They shouldn't fight at all, btw, since they were involved in deliberate children-slaughter (and arguably worse) for its own sake - which as we agreed can't be justified - often while filming (it doesn't get more deliberate than that), and since their stated goal is the destruction of a state of the exact kind they're supposedly fighting for (which makes no sense, unless you understand what Hamas is *really* trying to achieve; read their charter).

You clearly care about morality and ethics. Are you aware what they do to Palestinians on a daily basis? The blindingly obvious thing to do is to rid the Palestinians of Hamas.

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@FaizAhmadOff @IDF Hamas is placing innocent families in danger as a deliberate strategy. This can't and doesn't grant them immunity - and they are to blame for the casualties resulting from their immoral actions.

Want to actually help innocent Palestinians? Help rid them of their Hamas murderers.

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@ContraPoints World peeaaaace.

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

I agree that they do and that he does; this doesn't contradict that, concurrent to all this, his phrasing in several passages read as if he's describing what a scientist is doing - in the sense of intentional action - or something similar.

This sort of thing isn't unusual with Popper, btw - in some individual sentences, or less often paragraphs, he sometimes overstates or oversimplifies the case by his own lights (explicated elsewhere), even as any wider reading of his writings, plus a minimal level of intellectual generosity, should provide a reader with ample reason for confidence that they've understood what Popper's positions are. I chalk the former up to his idealized, "no need to be more precise that the matter requires", combined with his stated preference in lectures to prod and challenge listeners, even at the price of hyperbole. Neither of these strike me as wrong, and as stated earlier I'm a more than sympathetic reader of Popper. Still, it remains the case that he wasn't a precision fanatic in writing, prefering clarity and sustaining interest over it, and that over a long career with shifting focii of interests he wasn't always and everywhere 100% consistent down to the sentence level. (To my mind his advantages far, far outweigh any of these comparatively minor issues.)

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

To clarify: my claim is not that there is a mistake or irresolvable tension in Popper's position on this; only that several of his earlier formulations are fuzzy enough on this point to excuse wondering about it.

(Incidentally his 1968 use of metatheory I mentioned earlier - *not* the 1978 introduction you cite here - is on theorizing about the historical problem situation; ie he there hasn't "called his criterion of falsifiability, as well as the needed stance following from it, a metatheory of science".)

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

Popper only mentions a metatheory in this context in his "On the Theory of the Objective Mind" (1968) - and so at least for the 34 years prior, readers of his far more numerous mentions that scientists "do" such and such, or "approach the problem directly", or that science is characterised by etc. - might have understandably wondered what the precise relationship is that he's suggesting. Empirically, that happened - and that's what I was commenting on.

(Incidentally this and my previous comments are sympathetic - I wasn't suggesting some "objective" problem with his views; I'm a Popperian myself. It's a comment about an understandable - not unsolvable and not unresolved - point of ambiguity in much of his writings.)

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@bnielson01 @KWamlo Enjoy. If by midway through chapter 2, say, you're not thinking, "Oh - this guy's *good*!", something's gone wrong. 😉

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

Full book. Frightfully expensive/hard to get (sadly) - but I can't recommend it enough. Briskman is a Popperian working through the issues "Right-Popperians" (as they were jokingly called among Popper's students at the LSE) raised, and that still come up today. Easily the most significant Popperian publication since Miller's "Out of Error" (published, like so much of Popper's own important work, decades after its writing).

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@bnielson01 @KWamlo At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Laurence Briskman's "A Sceptical Theory of Scientific Inquiry" is essential reading on this point.

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@yehudamber המילה "יחסית" כאן עושה הרבה עבודה: דגום ישראלים באקראי, שאל אותם עליו - ודווח לנו בכל פעם שהתשובה איננה אפילו רק "מי?", אלא "מה?". 😋

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

@ItaehuSorek תודה! אצײן רק שהשאלה הייתה לגבי *שו"ת*, שבה הקשבה היא רק חלק מהעניין 😉

[Jonathan Clapsaddle @JonClap]

זה נכון?
(שו"ת, לא "תן לנו חצי שעה של פופר".)

[הדיוניסי — Ha'Dionysy @Hadionysy]

@JonClap ושתדע שכולם מחכים לספייס שו"ת פופר שלך. כולם